About equal. Would say Novak’s level is more consistent whilst Rafa’s peak is higher. Also, Rafa is a level or 2 higher on clay than Novak on HC.
Nadal's peak on grass was higher too...
11 finals actually. 6 at AO and 5 at USO.I'll give Nadal his dues on HC, he has 10 HC finals to his name. But I don't really see him as being ahead of Djokovic on clay, from a total body of work perspective.
11 finals actually. 6 at AO and 5 at USO.I'll give Nadal his dues on HC, he has 10 HC finals to his name. But I don't really see him as being ahead of Djokovic on clay, from a total body of work perspective.
Tbf 3 matches is a small sample size. I can imagine Djoker being 2-1 against Rafa at a second clay slam if things unfolded in a way that prevented them from playing each other again for a decade, with Rafa not being as physically fresh in the second clay slam (and possibly different conditions à la Madrid, where he didn't have the same level of success as he did at MC or Rome). But obviously, with a bigger sample size, the H2H would be largely in favor of Rafa.Ask yourself, if there was a second clay slam, would Djok hold a 2-1 bud record against him...
There's your answer...
No. You cannot have it both ways. If as some claim Djokovic GOAT because he has the numbers, then Nadal was greater on hard court than Djokovic was on clay. The argument that there are more events on hard court so players should adapt is a nonsense. It doesnt work like that if there are different surfaces as players from different countries grow up on different surfaces and their style suits different surfaces. The whole point of tennis is that it has different surfaces.It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If the slams as they are distributed in the modern era, therefore two on hard outdoor and one on clay, it means that on hard outdoor there are twice the chances of winning a slam compared to clay.
So 6 to 3 is an absolutely fair distribution in this specific comparison.
Otherwise, if the parameters are those you are alluding to, Nadal cannot even be considered the best player in history on a single surface given that he boasts 14 slams on clay which are the same as those that Djokovic boasts on hard outdoors.
When talking about GOAT, everything goes beyond the single surface and the whole package is taken into consideration in terms of how the circuit is structured.
It is obvious that if the slam circuit had been structured with two tournaments on clay and only one on hard outdoor, by now the most successful player in history would be Nadal and not Djokovic.
But the circuit is structured differently and everyone has to adapt, and in all this Djokovic deserves credit for having adapted better than anyone else to every type of surface, dominating like no other the most popular one which remains the hard outdoor .
Is this not the exact reason why there is no GOAT? Is this not also, moving forward, why the powers tat be need to look at revamping the calendar so that there are equal big events on each of the surfaces? Albeit i can see it going the other way and tennis ending up played on hard courts only eventually as it is so much cheaper.Yes, he has, but pound for pound, they are the same.
The same way it is said that Djokovic has more slams on his favorite surface, he also has less slams on his least favorite. And vice verse for Nadal.
I do agree that Hard is arguable, it could be grass, but I think the question is here is how the other did on their rival's best surface.
I'd say Djoker is slightly better on clay than Rafa on HC, but Rafa is significantly better on clay than Djoker on HC.
Tbf 3 matches is a small sample size. I can imagine Djoker being 2-1 against Rafa at a second clay slam if things unfolded in a way that prevented them from playing each other again for a decade, with Rafa not being as physically fresh in the second clay slam (and possibly different conditions à la Madrid, where he didn't have the same level of success as he did at MC or Rome). But obviously, with a bigger sample size, the H2H would be largely in favor of Rafa.
What is considered peak Djokovic on grass? 2011? 2015?
I think the locker room would unanimously agree with your post which is brilliantly put and basically is a thread completer as it is so bang on. What you have said is what ive tried to say for ages but could never put it as eloquently.I’ve given Federer and Djokovic huge kudos for what they’ve done. Anybody can go through my posts to figure that out quickly.
In this case, Nadal can beat anybody on any surface when he is clicking. If you are talking about a short time frame for peak, then I will take Nadal against anybody at a slam event. Nadal split Fed in 2007-08 at Wimbledon. He beat 2010-2013 Djoker at the USO. He was up a break vs world #1 Djoker in the 5th set at the 2012 AO. And he beat Federer at the 2009 AO.
Nadal was a stone-cold killer at slams during his best years. I call them as I see them. Nadal was the most impressive at slams when he was healthy and clicking. The knock against him is that he lacked the health and consistency to hold the key records. But when he was on, he was the deadliest across all surfaces on average.
My vote goes to Nadal in this metric. And I’d say that vs Fed too, just to show that I’m not trashing Djoker here. Nadal has this feather in his cap. And honestly, when you get 3 players of this caliber, then you’ll find that each one has advantages over the other 2. And when I see posters always saying that their fave is better than the other 2 in nearly every category, then I know that they can’t be taken seriously.
This one goes to Nadal. There is a reason why he won 22 slam titles, despite dealing with far more injuries than the other 2 combined.
Why would Nadal not be as dominant at a second clay slam. He won 10 Rome masters lol. 10 Monte Carlos. 10 Barcelonas. In real terms any GOAT debate has to remove the AO IF slams are the overriding criteria, main reason being that most of the ATG's from the past either didnt play it, or didnt take it that seriously up until around 2008 when it went to the blue courts and got a massive revamp.Those 3 matches were when they were in their prime...
It's actually a relatively significant sample size... how many other rivals have faced each other at the same major in 3 finals whilst in their primes?
Rafa would own a second clay slam, there's no point deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise. Perhaps not as much domination as at RG, but nevertheless, he's not going down 2-1 to Djok in finals during their primes lol that's crazy talk...
You gotta factor in that was the best versions of Rafa on HC vs versions of Djoker that didn't play their best tennis on HC. Is it so hard to believe that 2011/2013/2016 Clayovic could get the better of, say, 2011/2014 Claydal at a second clay slam? I don't think so. Timing is important. And don't forget he lost a USO final against Murray too, and he was in his prime. Goes to show he's simply not as supremely dominant on HC as Rafa is on clay.Those 3 matches were when they were in their prime...
It's actually a relatively significant sample size... how many other rivals have faced each other at the same major in 3 finals whilst in their primes?
Rafa would own a second clay slam, there's no point deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise. Perhaps not as much domination as at RG, but nevertheless, he's not going down 2-1 to Djok in finals during their primes lol that's crazy talk...
Why would Nadal not be as dominant at a second clay slam. He won 10 Rome masters lol. 10 Monte Carlos. 10 Barcelonas. In real terms any GOAT debate has to remove the AO IF slams are the overriding criteria, main reason being that most of the ATG's from the past either didnt play it, or didnt take it that seriously up until around 2008 when it went to the blue courts and got a massive revamp.
The other 3 slams are played on clay grass and hard and the slam total (open Era) is:
Nadal 20
Federer14
Djokovic 14
Sampras12
Borg11
The players are too politically correct to say which slams are more prestigious, or indeed which events are more prestigious at m1000 level for instance (IW and Rome i think we all know are the big 2 at that level) but historically and probably still today the AO still lags behind the other 3 slams. Looking at the above would you as a Nadal fan swap Nadal's career for Novak's at Slam level?
I am not arguing Nadal is GOAT btw. I dont think you can compare eras and the idiot who came up with the term GOAT created toxicity in the sport that was not needed frankly. I also totally get Djokovic's frustration at what he sees as a lack of respect for his achievements as there is no doubt that his overall body of work is incomparable and deserves huge respect and i agree with points made by some posters where they say nobody should be ranked higher than Novak but there are some who can be put equal to him.
My point is that IF Slams are the overriding factor then the above table is important as its 3 slams on each of the 3 surfaces at the 3 slams all the ATGS always played and took seriously.
You gotta factor in that was the best versions of Rafa on HC vs versions of Djoker that didn't play their best tennis on HC. Is it so hard to believe that 2011/2013/2016 Clayovic could get the better of, say, 2011/2014 Claydal at a second clay slam? I don't think so. Timing is important. And don't forget he lost an USO final against Murray too, and he was in his prime. Goes to show he's simply not as supremely dominant on HC as Rafa is on clay.
That being said, it doesn't mean I think it would actually happen. I did say Rafa is significantly better on clay than Djoker on HC, so there's that. But in those circumstances I mentioned, 2-1 in such a small time window (only 3 years), without them playing each other again for the rest of their career, wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility imo.
My point is that explanation could easily be sufficient to come to the conclusion that Djoker wouldn't lead 2-1 against Rafa at a second clay slam (which we don't actually know), it doesn't necessarily have to mean Rafa is better on HC than Djoker on clay.We know he's not as supremely dominant on hc as Nadal is on clay...
I actually agree with that, because I think the highest level of play Djoker reached on clay wasn't at RG. His RG peak isn't his clay peak imo, but the question is about surface, not slams.The level he displayed at AO09 and US10 in particular is higher than anything we've seen from Djok at RG...
Ask yourself, if there was a second clay slam, would Djok hold a 2-1 bud record against him...
There's your answer...
Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it.I think the locker room would unanimously agree with your post which is brilliantly put and basically is a thread completer as it is so bang on. What you have said is what ive tried to say for ages but could never put it as eloquently.
This is actually a thread created due to the uncertainty of the question.
You are hilarious with this victimism.
The forum is not for touchy people like you.
Evidently, raw nerves are touched.
7/10…not too shabby.The insecurity of Nadal fans borders on mysticism.
I didn’t know it was the “establishment” who went out on Arthur Ashe and handed Joker two spankings. Could have sworn it was a lefty Spaniard who’s supposedly just a CC specialistThe establishment and politicians managed to neutralize the second HC Slam (4-4) for them.
Just how much has the mighty establishment helped Rafa?![]()
Ok, the only thing I understood from this comment of yours is that Nadal cannot even be considered the best player in history on a single surface, or rather he is in cohabitation, given that;No. You cannot have it both ways. If as some claim Djokovic GOAT because he has the numbers, then Nadal was greater on hard court than Djokovic was on clay. The argument that there are more events on hard court so players should adapt is a nonsense. It doesnt work like that if there are different surfaces as players from different countries grow up on different surfaces and their style suits different surfaces. The whole point of tennis is that it has different surfaces.
Nadal got 22 slams with only one slam on his best surface. Federer got 20 with only one on his best surface and he had NONE at m1000 level on his best surface.
Djokovic fans want everything their own way and dont like it when the double standards get pointed out.
Slam
Djokovic clay= 3
Nadal hard outdoor= 6
Olympic gold
Djokovic clay= 1
Nadal hard outdoor= 1
Masters 1000
Djokovic clay= 11
Nadal hard outdoor= 9
Titles in general
Djokovic clay= 20
Nadal hard outdoor= 24
H2H
Clay
Nadal= 20
Djokovic = 9
Hard outdoors
Djokovic = 16
Nadal = 5
Australian Open
Djokovic = 2
Nadal= 0
Roland Garros
Nadal = 8
Djokovic = 2
US Open
Nadal = 2
Djokovic = 1
Additional question;
Do you think that at their peak Nadal would have had a better chance of beating Djokovic at the Australian Open, or Djokovic of beating Nadal at Roland Garros?
What about in Belgrade?Going to have to concur with others here and say this is another classic peak vs. consistency comparison. Djokovic has a higher floor on clay, and he maintained a strong level on the surface for longer, but Nadal produced a higher level at his best. FWIW I don’t think Djokovic’s peak level at RG is anything outstanding, his strength there is in consistency. Meanwhile, Nadal was very streaky on HC but I don’t think Djokovic came all that close to an AO 2009 or USO 2010 performance at RG. Maybe in Rome somewhere.
He’s a perfectly fine player at that tournament, almost up there with the likes of Karatsev.What about in Belgrade?
I didn’t know it was the “establishment” who went out on Arthur Ashe and handed Joker two spankings. Could have sworn it was a lefty Spaniard who’s supposedly just a CC specialist![]()
Who’s gonna tell him that Djokovic is also an establishment favorite?The establishment and politicians managed to neutralize the second HC Slam (4-4) for them.
Dark era - 2022-2023Just like on other surfaces, a big part of Djokovic's achievements on clay came in the asterisk era.
Dark era - 2022-2023
CIE - 2016-2019
Asterisk era 2020-2021
Sinneraz inflation era - 2024-2025
Karatsev has a high peakHe’s a perfectly fine player at that tournament, almost up there with the likes of Karatsev.
But if the ATP Finals was played on clay all these years, do you think Djokovic would have 0 titles?Ask yourself, if there was a second clay slam, would Djok hold a 2-1 bud record against him...
There's your answer...
But if the ATP Finals was played on clay all these years, do you think Djokovic would have 0 titles?
The 2nd clay slam means Fed becomes a clay specialist wins the hypothetical slamsAsk yourself, if there was a second clay slam, would Djok hold a 2-1 bud record against him...
There's your answer...
The 2nd clay slam means Fed becomes a clay specialist wins the hypothetical slams
LolYeah, he'll grow up playing on HC to ready his game for clay![]()
It's about Rafa on outdoor HC, ATP Finals are held on indoor HC.But if the ATP Finals was played on clay all these years, do you think Djokovic would have 0 titles?
So you admit Nadal is GOAT then. Sorry i thought you argued Djokovic was so my mistake but obviously you view nadal as GOAT according to the above.Ok, the only thing I understood from this comment of yours is that Nadal cannot even be considered the best player in history on a single surface, or rather he is in cohabitation, given that;
Slam on clay = Nadal 14
Slam on hard outdoor = Djokovic 14
So the Nadal clay and Djokovic hard outdoor versions are essentially on par.
Sorry but to say the slams have equal prestige displays a lack of understanding of the history of the game. The only debate is which is 2nd, FO or USOAO should not be removed... not at all...
All 4 slams have had the same prestige for long enough now.
I don't subscribe to "GOAT"... there's no such thing.
Slams are the most important factor, shouldn't discard other factors either though.
Obviously, these are just my opinion, but that's how I see it.
I go back to my original point in this thread, there's no way Nadal is going down 2-1 to Djok in finals at a second clay major... especially not in their primes. That is the reality we are in, Nadal is 2-1 v Djok in finals at the US Open - an outdoor HC event. Nadal on outdoor HC also has wins over peak Federer as well...
No, for me Djokovic is the GOAT as he is by far the most successful player in history.So you admit Nadal is GOAT then. Sorry i thought you argued Djokovic was so my mistake but obviously you view nadal as GOAT according to the above.
It's really very simple. Novak is #4 all time on Clay with an 80.6% winning percentage. Nadal is #11 all time on Hard Court with a 77.4% winning percentage. In addition, Novak has beaten Rafa on his favorite court several times and almost beat him a few more times. Rafa hasn't beaten Novak on his favorite court.
You are wrong. Your argument is weak as you rely on a calendar and that is not how a GOAT debate works.No, for me Djokovic is the GOAT as he is by far the most successful player in history.
I was simply analyzing your thinking.
If you say that Nadal in the hard outdoor version is superior to Djokovic in the clay version, leveraging the total number of slams on those surfaces, i.e. 6>3, ignoring that the slams on hard outdoors are double those on clay, then for consistency's sake you should also say that Nadal is not the best single-court player in history, given that on clay he achieved the same slams that Djokovic achieved on hard outdoor.
I, on the other hand, think that Djokovic is the GOAT overall, and Nadal is the GOAT on a single surface.
I'm sorry but the tennis calendar is structured in the way that allowed Djokovic to be the most successful player in history, the structure of two slams on hard outdoors, one on clay and one on grass, existed long before the big three.
The best is the one who managed to adapt best.
Regarding the thread issue.
If we analyze the skill on individual surfaces we must also take into account the distribution of tournaments, otherwise we could say that Federer himself was better on hard outdoor than on grass given that on hard outdoor he won 11 slams in total while on grass "only " 8.
While it is well known that Federer expressed his best especially on grass.
If he won more slams on hard outdoors it is precisely because there are twice as many chances, and not because he was better on hard outdoors than on grass.
Djokovic is easily the better player on clay, but Nadal is the greater player on outdoor hard. Rafa was always vulnerable to a host of players on hard, and it can be argued he overachieved winning 6 slam titles (three of them by beating 'HC GOATs' in the final).